Should LGBT Relationships Be Taught in Primary School? | This Morning

First topic message reminder :

It’s been announced that primary school children as young as five will now be taught about LGBT families and transgender relationships, with the new curriculum ending parents’ rights to opt their children out of the classes in 2020. We’re joined by Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist who believes that it’s about time that this happened and that inclusivity should be promoted from as early an age as possible, and Caroline Farrow who feels that it takes away a parent’s right to teach their own child about relationships.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rupJjIcxjc

Sorry, but that is the biggest load of claptrap ever proposed by Caroline Farrow.
Nobody is saying parents are not good enough at all and a parent has a continued right to coninue to teach children what ever belief they believe in. What is being taught is that children should come to understand that people are different in society within relationships. In that there is gay and transgender parents for example, as well as hetrosexal parents and people. To say this is about what is age appropiate, is based on what they think and not on thinking about how its going to make life less complicated for children. Growing up around other children, that have gay parents for example.

I mean we rightly teach evolution in school and there is many religious parents that disagree with this. Even though their view has no bases in science. Its allowing children to actually come to see scientifc theories on the origins of humanity. What parents may think they know what is best, for their children is based on their perceived perception based on their own beliefs and not as a society as a whole or any real science

So no power is being taken away from parents. As they have every right to disagree with what is being taught and daily fill their childrens heads, with example outdated and quite discrminating religious beliefs they may hold against homosexuals. Taking power away, would be denying the parent the right to teach their children their own views. That is not actually happenning. What is happenning is teaching children, that there is different parental groups and people, including children. What these parents are really saying, is they disagree with homosexuality etc. As why object for young children to come to understand adults have different relationships and that some children are different?

So its never imposing anything, if anything they are trying to censur the rights of children to actually learn, based on their beliefs. As that is what it boils down to. They want to censur a reality of the world today, based off what they disagree with. It shows the very exclusive view point they hold on what they want society to be like. When they should be welcoming children to learn about being inclusive to everyone.

So I am sorry, I know when I see bulllshit arguments and those opposing teaching these differences, are not based on age appopriation, but a prejudiced view they hold themselves.

Can anyone explain to me what Homosexual propaganda is?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I disagree... a fairy tale where there is a normal and natural love story being that of a male and female, is the right sort of message to be promoted to children...


Anything else is not the normal and natural way of things... and should definitely not be promoted as such in schools, to serve some twisted political agenda...!

Tommybot Repeat Programme ACTIVATED

Jesus man, you lost this argument in 2003. Drop your boring adjectives and get a life.

I'm not interested in it, see yah

Well... there will be general elections in a couple of years... and the brexit denying PC numpties in parliament are due to get a solid kicking into touch... making way for a new govt of politicians who are actually representing what the vast majority of the British people actually want...!


And... I predict that there are going to be some changes going on...!

Doubt any changes on the gay rights front. Even Rees-Mogg, who opposes gay marriage, acknowledges there is no chance of any reversals there.

The country wouldn't have it. You are stuck in the dark ages.

Thor wrote:Can anyone explain to me what Homosexual propaganda is?

Tommy?

In details

Or is the tommybot programme not that sophisticated yet?

Thor wrote:

Syl wrote:
So if a child asks 'where is your mummy', the answer would be I dont have a mummy I have a daddy, or daddies.....question answered, and I doubt most 5 year olds would bat an eye.

Then the kid ask, "why dont you have a mummy and have two daddies"?

I can do counter replies all day long if you like of what a kid asks

The facts are this

There is no danger or harm teaching children the basic understanding of different family set ups

Many children will have no idea about this and by starting early helps children have a basic understanding

This is always done in an age appropiate way

So people are simple making a fuss over something that is never going to damage the mind of the child but instead open the doors to understanding inclusion

I think you putting an adult mindset on a child tbh.
I was brought up by one parent, I never experienced other kids asking countless questions of why i didn't have a dad..young kids just accept what is.

Syl wrote:

Thor wrote:

Then the kid ask, "why dont you have a mummy and have two daddies"?

I can do counter replies all day long if you like of what a kid asks

The facts are this

There is no danger or harm teaching children the basic understanding of different family set ups

Many children will have no idea about this and by starting early helps children have a basic understanding

This is always done in an age appropiate way

So people are simple making a fuss over something that is never going to damage the mind of the child but instead open the doors to understanding inclusion

I think you putting an adult mindset on a child tbh.
I was brought up by one parent, I never experienced other kids asking countless questions of why i didn't have a dad..young kids just accept what is.

Are you now the bases for the experince that all children have?

Were you also growing up as a child, where there was many gay couple families?

No, in both cases

You simple cannot use yourself as a standard from the past, to how kids are growing up today syl and nobody is telling me what actual harm there is in any of this.

There is none and again it helps start to teach kids the basic understanding of inclusion

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:Can anyone explain to me what Homosexual propaganda is?

Tommy?

In details

Or is the tommybot programme not that sophisticated yet?

lol, I am very confused at this one

I would love to know what this propaganda is.....

Thor wrote:

Syl wrote:
I think you putting an adult mindset on a child tbh.
I was brought up by one parent, I never experienced other kids asking countless questions of why i didn't have a dad..young kids just accept what is.

Are you now the bases for the experince that all children have?

Were you also growing up as a child, where there was many gay couple families?

No, in both cases

You simple cannot use yourself as a standard from the past, to how kids are growing up today syl and nobody is telling me what actual harm there is in any of this.

There is none and again it helps start to teach kids the basic understanding of inclusion

Everyones experiences are different, but personal experience is often more insightful than reading accounts of stuff you have never experienced.

There were no gay couple families that i was aware of when I was growing up, there were very few one parent families either, so my point still stands. Young children accept others, they dont wonder why their friends are in a different family unit, one may have sisters or brothers, one may not.....so what?

My view is 5 year olds are not ready to be taught about LGBT relationships, just as they are not ready to learn algebra or run marathons.
Teaching them to be accepting and respectful to everyone, is enough at that age.

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:Can anyone explain to me what Homosexual propaganda is?

Tommy?

In details

Or is the tommybot programme not that sophisticated yet?

lol, I am very confused at this one

I would love to know what this propaganda is.....

I think the system crashed

He knows there isn't any. Google is probably telling him that right now

Syl wrote:

Thor wrote:

Are you now the bases for the experince that all children have?

Were you also growing up as a child, where there was many gay couple families?

No, in both cases

You simple cannot use yourself as a standard from the past, to how kids are growing up today syl and nobody is telling me what actual harm there is in any of this.

There is none and again it helps start to teach kids the basic understanding of inclusion

Everyones experiences are different, but personal experience is often more insightful than reading accounts of stuff you have never experienced.

There were no gay couple families that i was aware of when I was growing up, there were very few one parent families either, so my point still stands. Young children accept others, they dont wonder why their friends are in a different family unit, one may have sisters or brothers, one may not.....so what?

My view is 5 year olds are not ready to be taught about LGBT matters, just as they are not ready to learn algebra or run marathons.
Teaching them to be accepting and respectful to everyone, is enough at that age.

Yes but your personal experinced as a child happened decades ago and now society has changed dramatically from the social environment that you grew up in. Where I certainly remember kids asking others, why they did not have a dad. So I can use the same logic you applying based on mny experince. All of which is irrlevant to today with children growing up, in this time. as our experince could be miles removed from many kids today.

Children do not always accept others and bullying can and does start from the earlies ages, dependent on how they are being raised. We also teach about disabilities to children. So they come to be inclusive towards them also.  

Saying you think they are not ready, without even actually showing me how their cognitive ability is not ready to you. Is simple your opinion. Where again what you need to argue, is how they are not ready, using reliable scientific understanding. You have not once demonstrated this.

This is simple teaching children, that some women are married to other women and have families for example. A child of 5 can understand this and is a way of teahcing them to learn and understand and be accepting towards others. Its the intial first learning curve, they are taught in regards to this

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

lol, I am very confused at this one

I would love to know what this propaganda is.....

I think the system crashed

He knows there isn't any. Google is probably telling him that right now

Right, really have to go, maybe a certain someone will point out exactly what Homosexual propaganda is for me....



Night everyone

Thor wrote:Right, really have to go, maybe a certain someone will point out exactly what Homosexual propaganda is for me....



Night everyone

See yah didge

I dont believe children of 5 should be taught in school about different relationships between adults. They should be taught to be kind to others....not to distinguish between groups...just be kind to everyone.

If kids are being bullied for ANY reason, address the bully,  not the victim.

I think (having given it some thought) aged 10 is a good time to introduce discussion  of LGBT relationships in class.


I'm off too....night all.

Syl wrote:I dont believe children of 5 should be taught in school about different relationships between adults. They should be taught to be kind to others....not to distinguish between groups...just be kind to everyone.

If kids are being bullied for ANY reason, address the bully,  not the victim.

I think (having given it some thought) aged 10 is a good time to introduce discussion  of LGBT relationships in class.


I'm off too....night all.

My view is it really needn't be a discussion.

If an 8 year old reads one book of a Prince marrying a Princess, another where a Prince falls in love with another Prince, then whatever. If it isn't made into a massive issue, it won't become one

For the record, I still believe most books kids have access to (which include any element of 'love stories') should predominantly show men with women (as in, traditional fairy stories) but a few can be different - as to represent reality.

Syl wrote:I dont believe children of 5 should be taught in school about different relationships between adults. They should be taught to be kind to others....not to distinguish between groups...just be kind to everyone.

If kids are being bullied for ANY reason, address the bully,  not the victim.

I think (having given it some thought) aged 10 is a good time to introduce discussion  of LGBT relationships in class.


I'm off too....night all.

It does not matter what you believe, as this is going to be standard teaching practice.

One of the ways to tackle problems of bullying, is to teach inclusion and the best way to tackle bullying is actually what is called a "whole school approach". This means, pupils, teachers, parents, governors all being involved as a collective group, that forms collobroative and cohesive action.

Hence why the very approach on bullying, with the "whole school approach". Means teaching teaching to be inclusive of others. Which in this case can be done through age appropiate ways. To explain to child the basics of different family set ups

So , you may well disagree Syl, with the age set, but clearly psychologically its an acceptable age, to start this process. As kids at this age have developed a certain cognitive understanding of their own family set up. So many within psychologicy and teachers themselves. Have a better grasp, of when and how children can first learn basic differences within people. I think this is very important and if taught at such early ages. Will go a long way to preventing future hostility to the LGTB. You may disagree, that is your choice, but I back this view, which I think has plenty of benefits.

What les said
the point is really to normalize it so it is not an issue. Would it have made a difference if one of the little rascals had 2 dads/mums? no, you could make the same show.

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont believe children of 5 should be taught in school about different relationships between adults. They should be taught to be kind to others....not to distinguish between groups...just be kind to everyone.

If kids are being bullied for ANY reason, address the bully,  not the victim.

I think (having given it some thought) aged 10 is a good time to introduce discussion  of LGBT relationships in class.


I'm off too....night all.

My view is it really needn't be a discussion.

If an 8 year old reads one book of a Prince marrying a Princess, another where a Prince falls in love with another Prince, then whatever. If it isn't made into a massive issue, it won't become one

For the record, I still believe most books kids have access to (which include any element of 'love stories') should predominantly show men with women (as in, traditional fairy stories) but a few can be different - as to represent reality.

Well it seems from 2020 the  school curriculum will  introduce nation wide 'age appropriate' sex/relationship education for children as young as 5, and  compulsory discussions on sexual relations in senior schools whether parents like it or not, so, if thats the case I think all relationships should be discussed. Reading books is a good source of education, but group discussion is also valid imo.
Many schools now have a mix of children from various backgrounds, cultures and religions, if some are being taught homosexuality is wrong at home, school discussions where less discriminating views are discussed could be helpful imo.

Parents can still opt out of these lessons for their kids in primary schools if they wish. Some go even further.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6766643/Birmingham-Muslim-parents-withdraw-600-children-Parkfield-Community-School-LGBT-lessons.html

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont believe children of 5 should be taught in school about different relationships between adults. They should be taught to be kind to others....not to distinguish between groups...just be kind to everyone.

If kids are being bullied for ANY reason, address the bully,  not the victim.

I think (having given it some thought) aged 10 is a good time to introduce discussion  of LGBT relationships in class.


I'm off too....night all.

My view is it really needn't be a discussion.

If an 8 year old reads one book of a Prince marrying a Princess, another where a Prince falls in love with another Prince, then whatever. If it isn't made into a massive issue, it won't become one

For the record, I still believe most books kids have access to (which include any element of 'love stories') should predominantly show men with women (as in, traditional fairy stories) but a few can be different - as to represent reality.

Well it seems from 2020 the  school curriculum will  introduce nation wide 'age appropriate' sex/relationship education for children as young as 5, and  compulsory discussions on sexual relations in senior schools whether parents like it or not, so, if thats the case I think all relationships should be discussed. Reading books is a good source of education, but group discussion is also valid imo.
Many schools now have a mix of children from various backgrounds, cultures and religions, if some are being taught homosexuality is wrong at home, school discussions where less discriminating views are discussed could be helpful imo.

Parents can still opt out of these lessons for their kids in primary schools if they wish. Some go even further.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6766643/Birmingham-Muslim-parents-withdraw-600-children-Parkfield-Community-School-LGBT-lessons.html

'age appropriate' is the important wording there.

For the likes of tommy, they'd peddle the BS that this means sex taught in primary schools...

Of course, it really probably means picture books featuring a couple of male penguins bringing up a baby penguin

As to those Muslims - well, I'm a pretty liberal guy, some might accuse me of being more PC than many; but I'd say those women are doing a shitty job of integrating

its the pedaophilia integral to the leftwing mindset to desensitize young children and essentially groom them for exploitation at a later date

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well it seems from 2020 the  school curriculum will  introduce nation wide 'age appropriate' sex/relationship education for children as young as 5, and  compulsory discussions on sexual relations in senior schools whether parents like it or not, so, if thats the case I think all relationships should be discussed. Reading books is a good source of education, but group discussion is also valid imo.
Many schools now have a mix of children from various backgrounds, cultures and religions, if some are being taught homosexuality is wrong at home, school discussions where less discriminating views are discussed could be helpful imo.

Parents can still opt out of these lessons for their kids in primary schools if they wish. Some go even further.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6766643/Birmingham-Muslim-parents-withdraw-600-children-Parkfield-Community-School-LGBT-lessons.html

'age appropriate' is the important wording there.

For the likes of tommy, they'd peddle the BS that this means sex taught in primary schools...

Of course, it really probably means picture books featuring a couple of male penguins bringing up a baby penguin

As to those Muslims - well, I'm a pretty liberal guy, some might accuse me of being more PC than many; but I'd say those women are doing a shitty job of integrating

This will surely go down well for Tommy mate....




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=614k_UoFa2U

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

lol, I am very confused at this one

I would love to know what this propaganda is.....

I think the system crashed

He knows there isn't any. Google is probably telling him that right now

I have a bed to go to... got to be up early every morning for work...

well, the protesters won

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parent-protests?CMP=twt_gu

Good... but I bet the pc numpties just try rolling it out somewhere else.

smelly-bandit wrote:its the pedaophilia integral to the leftwing mindset to desensitize young children and essentially groom them for exploitation at a later date

Are you saying that homosexuality = pǽdaophilia?  I'd like to see you support that one...I mean, with real science, not RW bloggers and Faux News hosts.

Homosexuals, being quite normal, subscribe to the same standards that you and I do...pǽdaophilia is illegal and wrong, and  it violates norms of consent and fairness.  It just proves that RW'ers have undisciplined sexual fantasies and--as my dear old mother would say--impure thoughts.  

gelico wrote:

well, the protesters won

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parent-protests?CMP=twt_gu

Good for them. Though I do wonder what those same parents will do in a few years time when the children are starting secondary education.

gelico wrote:

well, the protesters won

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parent-protests?CMP=twt_gu

Hardly say that is winning

Its been stopped for the time being and looking to resume after Easter

Syl wrote:

gelico wrote:

well, the protesters won

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parent-protests?CMP=twt_gu

Good for them. Though I do wonder what those same parents will do in a few years time when the children are starting secondary education.

it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall within the classroom environment nowdays, especially within these ''lessons''. the protesters are saying that they are ''actively promoting homosexuality'' which is tommy's stance, yet the school say they are promoting inclusivity

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:

Good for them. Though I do wonder what those same parents will do in a few years time when the children are starting secondary education.

it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall within the classroom environment nowdays, especially within these ''lessons''.  the protesters are saying that they are ''actively promoting homosexuality'' which is tommy's stance, yet the school say they are promoting inclusivity

Why not look at the programme yourself

http://www.alston.bham.sch.uk/no-outsiders/

There is 31 books in total and only 4 deal with sexual or gender oreintation and used at stage 2

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:its the pedaophilia integral to the leftwing mindset to desensitize young children and essentially groom them for exploitation at a later date

Are you saying that homosexuality = pǽdaophilia?  I'd like to see you support that one...I mean, with real science, not RW bloggers and Faux News hosts.

Homosexuals, being quite normal, subscribe to the same standards that you and I do...pǽdaophilia is illegal and wrong, and  it violates norms of consent and fairness.  It just proves that RW'ers have undisciplined sexual fantasies and--as my dear old mother would say--impure thoughts.  

nope

im saying that the left like to start em off early when it comes to sexualising them.

5 years old is too early to be learning about fucking, but apparently not early enough for the perverted left who seem to want to move our society towards a more tolerant approach to sexual orientation

afterall if gays and striaght people are "born this way" how long till the liberal left start arguing that pedos are also "born this way"

peter tatchell a prominent pedophile (who in an unrelated turn of events, happens to be gay) is actively seking to legalise pedophillia by lowering the age of consent so that minors are no longer considered minors in matters of intercourse.

peter tatchell is also a rabid leftwinger

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you saying that homosexuality = pǽdaophilia?  I'd like to see you support that one...I mean, with real science, not RW bloggers and Faux News hosts.

Homosexuals, being quite normal, subscribe to the same standards that you and I do...pǽdaophilia is illegal and wrong, and  it violates norms of consent and fairness.  It just proves that RW'ers have undisciplined sexual fantasies and--as my dear old mother would say--impure thoughts.  

5 years old is too early to be learning about fucking, but apparently not early enough for the perverted left who seem to want to move our society towards a more tolerant approach to sexual orientation

Nobody is teaching 5 year olds about fucking

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:


it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall within the classroom environment nowdays, especially within these ''lessons''.  the protesters are saying that they are ''actively promoting homosexuality'' which is tommy's stance, yet the school say they are promoting inclusivity

Why not look at the programme yourself

http://www.alston.bham.sch.uk/no-outsiders/

There is 31 books in total and only 4 deal with sexual or gender oreintation and used at stage 2

So there is 31 books, teaching inclusivity, based on race, gender, religion etc and they only object to the 4 that teach inclusion to people homosexual/bisexual etc

Which translate as not wanting children to be inclusive to homosexuals/Bisexuals etc

That is clear its their illiberal religious beliefs driving this as its clear they stand against homosexuality. In a country that holds liberal values.

Are we supposed to surrender our liberal values, for the illiberal values of some illiberal parents?

Sorry their illiberal religious views, should never superscede human rights of homosexuals, bisexuals, etc

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont believe children of 5 should be taught in school about different relationships between adults. They should be taught to be kind to others....not to distinguish between groups...just be kind to everyone.

If kids are being bullied for ANY reason, address the bully,  not the victim.

I think (having given it some thought) aged 10 is a good time to introduce discussion  of LGBT relationships in class.


I'm off too....night all.

My view is it really needn't be a discussion.

If an 8 year old reads one book of a Prince marrying a Princess, another where a Prince falls in love with another Prince, then whatever. If it isn't made into a massive issue, it won't become one

For the record, I still believe most books kids have access to (which include any element of 'love stories') should predominantly show men with women (as in, traditional fairy stories) but a few can be different - as to represent reality.

Since when has it ever been "reality" where a prince falls in love with a prince...!!!???


And why is it so important to you, and other pc dip shots, that very young children have to be subjected to this, or any other of this type of stuff, that is clearly crafted under the agenda of the promotion of homosexuality to young children...!?

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:This is why "section 28" needs to be reinacted...


Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.



Time and money needs to be spent on providing proper education... not promoting any agenda...!

How is being gay 'promoted' in schools?

You can never answer this. It's why you just end up coming across as a vindictive little gob shite.

If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

Because as you know, Section 28 was used to forbid any mention of gay relationships in schools. Which is disgusting and destructive for gay and bi teens who often isolated as it is, and also for straights kids who are not as informed as they should be.

No... it was there to stop the active promotion of homosexuality to children in schools... the overwhelming vast majority (99% or so) who are normal and natural heterosexuals...!


So... I ask again...


If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

Tommy, why is it so wrong for kids to find out under the supervision of qualified teachers that gay people exist?

It's not like they'll never figure it out otherwise ...

Children should learn these things at home, if and when the topic comes up.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Tommy, why is it so wrong for kids to find out under the supervision of qualified teachers that gay people exist?

It's not like they'll never figure it out otherwise ...

Well... if... as you say... that they are going to figure it out themselves at some point anyway... and considering that each will reach that point of being able to figure it out in their own time, when their own individual mind is at that point where it is ready to be thinking about the possibilities of such things and actually ready to figure it out for themselves etc...


Then there is absolutely no reason to be forcing young children to be subjected to any of this pro homosexual propaganda, and forcing them to start having to think about any of this at any time of anyone else's choosing of when THEY think it is right for children to be thinking about such things...!


Leave the children alone and let them think about it and work it out for themselves... when THE CHILDREN THEMSELVES ARE READY TO START THINKING ABOUT SUCH THINGS FOR THEMSELVES!!!

That’s what I already said in my post, Tommy. But in less words.

eddie wrote:Children should learn these things at home, if and when the topic comes up.

I disagree.  In fact, part of the problem is that certain common values--like equality, respect and toleration--are left to the family...and some parents aren't up to the task.

Schools, at least, can expose the children to other ideas, and the children in turn can recognize the debate.  The result is, less mistakes and misapprehensions...and probably less crime.  I mean, if we are going to teach kids certain mechanical skills like writing, math and grammar, shouldn't civility be in there with them?

Yes Eddie... but some on here try to put it across as it's just "equality" and "inclusion" etc... and that it's just "qualified teachers gently letting young children know that gay people exist"...


But... the reality of it is an overt and deliberate agenda based program of targeting young children with pro homosexual propaganda... with the sole objective being to manipulate their minds towards the acceptance of the subject matter that is projected at them, as well as installing the belief that the subject matter projected should be thought of as being right...!

eddie wrote:Children should learn these things at home, if and when the topic comes up.

I'm sure Muslim and Evangelical Christian families will do a great job of that.

Even my family, who are great and fully accepting, failed to do this (but I was raised in the 90s, different times).

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:This is why "section 28" needs to be reinacted...


Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.



Time and money needs to be spent on providing proper education... not promoting any agenda...!

How is being gay 'promoted' in schools?

You can never answer this. It's why you just end up coming across as a vindictive little gob shite.

If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

Evasive and disingenuous.

We know how Section 28 worked in reality. If you can't say how homosexuality is promoted then you're wrong. Finished.

eddie wrote:Children should learn these things at home, if and when the topic comes up.

The parents from the school in  Birmingham who have campaigned to stop the lessons being taught to their children are 98% Muslim. 
I doubt these kids will be taught at home that homosexuality is accepted.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

Evasive and disingenuous.

We know how Section 28 worked in reality. If you can't say how homosexuality is promoted then you're wrong. Finished.

Its not me who is being "evasive" or "disingenuous"...


Try reading again...


Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.




Do you think that local authorities should be promoting such things, and spending taxpayer funds on educational materials and projects that promote gay lifestyles...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

Evasive and disingenuous.

We know how Section 28 worked in reality. If you can't say how homosexuality is promoted then you're wrong. Finished.

Its not me who is being "evasive" or "disingenuous"...


Try reading again...


Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.




Do you think that local authorities should be promoting such things, and spending taxpayer funds on educational materials and projects that promote gay lifestyles...!!!???

Still no answer.

Thick.

I don't know how gay lifestyles can be 'promoted'. If you can do that, I might be able to answer your question.

EDIT: interesting note in the Section 28 guidelines there is 'perceived'. Which can be taken to mean whatever someone wants

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Its not me who is being "evasive" or "disingenuous"...


Try reading again...


Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.




Do you think that local authorities should be promoting such things, and spending taxpayer funds on educational materials and projects that promote gay lifestyles...!!!???

Still no answer.

Thick.

I don't know how gay lifestyles can be 'promoted'. If you can do that, I might be able to answer your question.

Do you think that local authorities should be promoting such things, and spending taxpayer funds on educational materials and projects that promote gay lifestyles...!!!???



Or not...!!!???



Come on Les...


Tell us what you really think/mean...!?


If section 28 was reinstated... what exactly is it that is happening now that you think would be stopped by this...!?

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:Children should learn these things at home, if and when the topic comes up.

I'm sure Muslim and Evangelical Christian families will do a great job of that.

Even my family, who are great and fully accepting, failed to do this (but I was raised in the 90s, different times).

Okay I take your point on that. I guess I judge everyone by my standards of raising kids.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:Children should learn these things at home, if and when the topic comes up.

I'm sure Muslim and Evangelical Christian families will do a great job of that.

Even my family, who are great and fully accepting, failed to do this (but I was raised in the 90s, different times).

Okay I take your point on that. I guess I judge everyone by my standards of raising kids.

If everyone raised their kids as you do, there'd be far fewer problems in the world

Sadly, we aren't even close to that point

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Its not me who is being "evasive" or "disingenuous"...


Try reading again...


Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.




Do you think that local authorities should be promoting such things, and spending taxpayer funds on educational materials and projects that promote gay lifestyles...!!!???

Still no answer.

Thick.

I don't know how gay lifestyles can be 'promoted'. If you can do that, I might be able to answer your question.

Do you think that local authorities should be promoting such things, and spending taxpayer funds on educational materials and projects that promote gay lifestyles...!!!???



Or not...!!!???



Come on Les...


Tell us what you really think/mean...!?


If section 28 was reinstated... what exactly is it that is happening now that you think would be stopped by this...!?

Fuck, tommy. Do you even know what history is?

I went to school in the 90s, the time when Sec 28 was in force. It meant NO mention of homosexuality whatsoever. It being brought up by teachers could have been 'perceived' as 'promotion' and there'd have been trouble.

The result was people like me growing up with no positive role models, no support from teachers on the matter, no feeling that your feelings were 'OK' or 'natural' (and subsequently, as a closeted teen, feeling there is something wrong with you). And no attempt to tackle the topic of homophobia. All in a school environment that is decidely homophobic (in the 90s certainly, but also today in places)

That is so wrong.

I wouldn't change my personal path, because I believe everything that happens to us shapes us some how, and I might not have ended up where I am today.

But no one should have to go through the silent struggle I did, or the worse struggles many kids go through - especially those who find it more difficult to 'hide' their sexuality.

I lived it tommy, so fuck your hypothetical.

Waffle...


Section 28 didn't stop the mention of homosexuality from ever happening...


It was there to stop the promotion of homosexuality from happening... and to stop taxpayer money being spent on any educational materials and projects that promote gay lifestyles...!!!



There is only one normal and natural way of things... and that is the only thing that we should be promoting as being the normal and natural way of things, to the younger generation...


If a tiny minority of them then go on to do other things of their own choosing... then that is completely up to them...


But it Is wrong to promote anything other than the normal and natural way of things...!